Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Caution about results from Original Poll

[Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxx>]

>> "Free trade seemed to me like a write in vote, almost like writing in the
>> name homer simpson when casting your vote if you don't like any of the
>> parties or candidates during election time."

> Whatever makes the 15% cap - or any other number for that matter - the magic
> number for which VI becomes dangerous to everything it sees?  2%?  Peachy!
>  10%? Good to go!  13%?  For they are jolly good fellows!  15%?  Whoa! Gotta
> keep my eye on you!  16%?  You common crook, you!!

Carlton, I actually am in violent agreement with you on this logic on
percentages, and I might even go so far as to say that my personal
opinion is  "more than 0%, less than 100%, as long as control was not
present (which would be very difficult to argue control was not
present over 50%".

I wasn't attacking the Free Trade proposal so much as to say that it
was probably successful because it was less disagreeable than the
others to the largest number of people, and thus it was attractive in
the poll, but it seemed to me that the JN2 and DECK+ made efforts to
address things and did so in a manner that would get us an outcome
soon.

It seems like the best that will come form the group is a reasonable
amount of equity to the dissatisfaction about the outcome.

-Jothan

Jothan Frakes
+1.206-355-0230 tel
+1.206-201-6881 fax



On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Carlton Samuels
<carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Free trade seemed to me like a write in vote, almost like writing in the
> name homer simpson when casting your vote if you don't like any of the
> parties or candidates during election time."
> This is an interesting observation.  I truly believe regulation ought not to
> be on whim or caprice.  And in the case of new gTLDs - something we are
> constantly told is evolved thinking - the a priori cross-ownership
> disabilities represent just that.
> Whatever makes the 15% cap - or any other number for that matter - the magic
> number for which VI becomes dangerous to everything it sees?  2%?  Peachy!
>  10%? Good to go!  13%?  For they are jolly good fellows!  15%?  Whoa! Gotta
> keep my eye on you!  16%?  You common crook, you!!
> And I'm making it as simple as it can be.
> Some soundings say it is historical but for all we know, it may well
> represent the musings of  some slack-jawed clerk somewhere in the
> bureaucracy...or the rattles of a simple mind. Let me hear a successful
> contradiction to that and I will change my mind.
> Carlton Samuels
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
> =============================
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> I wasn't confused at all about the poll.
>>
>> These are complex issues and it was a matter of picking the proposal that
>> had the most of what one agrees with and the least of what one disagreed
>> with.
>>
>> It would be inappropriate, I think, to take the results of the poll as
>> anything indicative of group conscience without indicating it was a rough
>> poll.
>>
>> Free trade seemed to me like a write in vote, almost like writing in the
>> name homer simpson when casting your vote if you don't like any of the
>> parties or candidates during election time.
>>
>> The newer, atomic poll seems a wise place to gauge the group.
>>
>> On a lighter note, I concur with Jeff on his assessment of the chaos that
>> ensues with ice cream and 5 year olds.  I think if we could have hamster
>> wheels at these birthday parties that could be tied to generators, many
>> energy problems could be lessened.  But let's not keep on that topic for
>> fear I be branded a proponent of child labor.  Just thinking about the
>> environmental impact.
>>
>> jothan frakes
>>
>> On Jun 16, 2010 7:01 AM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>>
>>
>> I do believe the first poll on the proposals was in fact useful and a
>> really good exercise.  And I am not just saying that because the JN2
>> proposal got the most “yes” votes.  My caution, however, is that some are
>> now describing the “Free Trade” proposal as the one that most people support
>> because of the number of people that either said “yes” or “can live with.”
>> I do not believe that view is entirely accurate.  This is because both the
>> JN2 proposal and the RACK+ proposal both dealt with limitations on
>> ownership/control.  People were divided on how exactly to limit
>> ownership/control, but not on the concept of whether to apply restrictions.
>>
>>
>>
>> The analogy I use is my oldest daughter’s birthday party this year where
>> the kids had a choice of “Mixed Fruit”, “Chocolate Ice Cream” or “Vanilla
>> Ice Cream”.   7 kids (surprisingly) chose mixed fruit, 6 kids chose
>> chocolate ice cream and 6 kids chose “Vanilla Ice Cream”.  So of the 19 kids
>> at the party, more of them chose Fruit than any other choice, so that would
>> be a true statement.  However, it would also be true that more kids choice
>> “Ice Cream” in general instead of fruit.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here we have the same type of thing.  Taken one way, more people chose the
>> Free Trade Proposal than chose RACK.  But, looked at a different way, more
>> people chose to apply limits on cross ownership/control than chose Free
>> Trade.
>>
>>
>>
>> We just need to remember the ice cream/mixed fruit analogy going forward.
>>
>>
>>
>> P.S.  Never have a party with 19 screaming 5 year olds and offer them ice
>> cream….very messy and the sugar high afterwards is a killer J
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
>> 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166
>> Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 /
>> jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx  / www.neustar.biz
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the
>> use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or
>> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have
>> received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination,
>> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
>> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and
>> delete the original message.
>>
>>
>